In the spirit of further identifying and clarifying the points of discussion for Friday’s get-together, here’s a translation of Brabender’s comments:

What he said: “It’s about more than moving toward an endorsement. It’s also about helping Rick and Governor Romney to get to know each other on a personal level. They’ve only talked in passing at the debates; they’ve never really gotten to know each other. Rick wants to sit down with Romney, one on one, and talk through some things.”

What he meant: We think we’ve been clear that there isn’t going to be an endorsement yet. That will come in time, but we won’t be rushed. First, Rick wants to get acquainted with the governor and size him up outside the glare of the spotlight. Let’s face it: Nearly everyone who ran against Mitt in 2008 or this year loathes him. We’re no different. But we’re willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. We’re pros, we get that primaries can be bruising affairs. Still, we’d like to hear a little more about the thinking behind that Pennsylvania ad they cut near the end. A ‘historically embarrassing’ loss in 2006? ‘Lost his home county by 30 points’? That was below the belt.

What he said: “Rick, as someone who garnered over 3 million votes and won eleven states, is someone who can share a lot with Romney about how to win over conservatives, tea-party voters, and blue-collar Republicans. He is going to want to know, first hand, how Romney expects to make that part of the party not only part of his campaign, but part of his administration, should he win the election.”

What he meant: Respect must be paid. We’re not coming into this meeting as supplicants: We beat the governor and his fancy Boston campaign in the South, the Midwest and the Mountain West. And we did it with no money. Not bad for an "unelectable" candidate. We’d be happy to provide some insights into the various key constituencies that Mitt couldn’t crack. After that, we’re very interested in understanding the thinking surrounding the choice for vice president and, of course, HHS secretary.

What he said: “Rick doesn’t have any expectations going into this meeting. We’ve only taken one thing off of the table: talking about our campaign debt. Rick doesn’t want that to be a part of the discussion, in any way. For us, it’s an extremely manageable debt, and an endorsement, should it come, will be about policy and principles, not about a deal between the campaigns on the debt.”

What he meant: Consider this a warning: There better not be any blind-sourced stories out of the meeting suggesting that we came hat in hand. By the end, we had built out a decent direct mail list and even managed to do pretty well on the Internet. The time to talk about our debt will come later.

What he said: Santorum will “not be walking in there with a list of 20 demands.”

What he meant: Don’t worry — the list of demands will be far shorter than 20. Rick’s not Newt.

What he said: “I highly doubt that a convention speaking slot will be discussed on Friday. But from a consultant perspective, it’s clear that Rick fired up the base in state after state. He kept winning, even after he was ignored by the party hierarchy. It would be a logical benefit for the Romney people to have Rick play a major role at the convention.”

What he meant: Did I mention the thumping we gave Romney in multiple states? That’s worth something, probably a prime convention speaking slot, but we’re not looking for guarantees right now. Obviously, we speak to an extremely valuable constituency that Mitt cannot hope to reach on his own, so we expect Rick will play a major role at the convention — it’s only logical. By the way, that means a role that outshines Newt Gingrich and even Ron Paul, because, as I mentioned earlier, we won state after state. How many did Paul win?

What he said: “The senator certainly hopes that the governor will select someone who adheres to conservative principles. I don’t think [Santorum] has personally ruled anything out. The decision remains in the hands of the Romney strategists. They’re smart people. I’m sure they are going to be looking for someone who enhances their chances in the fall, and that will probably be someone who is a conservative Republican leader.”

What he meant: We don’t need to tell the Romney camp about the importance of selecting someone who can address some of the concerns the base has about Mitt’s commitment to the cause. That would be patronizing. Naturally, the senator would fill some of those holes, and he'd be flattered to be in consideration. His swing state background would make him an asset. But we’re not making any demands here.